dutchman
Well-Known Member
You said you don't believe there is any random attacking by coalition forces in Syria yet admit that there is elsewhere in the region.
US bombing in Syria (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ccfc92
- Start date
You said you don't believe there is any random attacking by coalition forces in Syria yet admit that there is elsewhere in the region.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
At least 112 bodies have been pulled from the site of a US-led coalition airstrike in Mosul, senior Iraqi health official Ahmed Dubardani said Monday.
The deaths have sparked renewed concerns about civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes targeting ISIS fighters in the city.
A senior Iraqi military officer said a March 17 coalition airstrike on an explosives-laden ISIS truck led to the deaths of dozens of civilians.
The coalition said a review confirmed one strike that day in the area where the casualties were reported. But US officials have not confirmed the senior Iraqi officer's account.
Both the Iraqi and US defense departments launched investigations Saturday into possible civilian deaths in airstrikes between March 17 and 23.
While those investigations continue, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said, "There is no military force in the world that is proven more sensitive to civilian casualties."
"We are keenly aware that every battlefield where an enemy hides behind women and children is also a humanitarian field, and we go out of our way to always do everything humanly possible to reduce the loss of life or injury among innocent people," Mattis said. "The same cannot be said for our adversaries."
'Told to stay at home'
US and Iraqi forces have been trying to regain control of Mosul -- Iraq's second-largest city -- from ISIS since October.
ISIS had a firm grip on Mosul since 2014, but suffered a major blow when Iraqi security forces regained control of eastern Mosul in January. But the arduous fight for western Mosul continues.
According to Amnesty International, many of those killed in the airstrikes were "following Iraqi government advice not to leave during the offensive."
"The high civilian toll suggests that coalition forces leading the offensive in Mosul have failed to take adequate precautions to prevent civilian deaths, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law," said Amnesty's Donatella Rovera, who carried out field investigations in Mosul, in a statement.
"The fact that Iraqi authorities repeatedly advised civilians to remain at home instead of fleeing the area, indicates that coalition forces should have known that these strikes were likely to result in a significant numbers of civilian casualties."
Amnesty also accused ISIS forces of "shamefully resort(ing) to using civilians as human shields."
Life under ISIS rule
For Iraqis in recently freed parts of Mosul, the haunting memories of ISIS are still fresh.
One woman in the southern Wadi Hajer neighborhood said ISIS fighters forced her and her family from their home and took them to another house to be used as human shields. She said life under ISIS was humiliating and painful.
A grandmother in the same neighborhood said she lived with her son, his wife and their children as ISIS tormented the area.
She recalled a time when her family's water got cut off, and the whole family had to share one last remaining glass.
"I would go around and give my grandson a sip, and then the others," the grandmother said. "We would all take one sip at a time."
What do you do? Reading this, it's poor Iraq-US advice for citizens to stay.
Yet ISIS have a certain amount of control over these people, and use them to their advantage.
The headline makes the US look like murdering conquerors, the article itself contradicts the headline IMO in some degree.
If the US said; Right, get out of Mosul, we're flattening the place with bombs. A) Do you think innocent people will be allowed to leave and ISIS will stay there, and B) Do you not think ISIS will leave too?
The deaths have sparked renewed concerns about civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes targeting ISIS fighters in the city.
A senior Iraqi military officer said a March 17 coalition airstrike on an explosives-laden ISIS truck led to the deaths of dozens of civilians.
The coalition said a review confirmed one strike that day in the area where the casualties were reported. But US officials have not confirmed the senior Iraqi officer's account.
Both the Iraqi and US defense departments launched investigations Saturday into possible civilian deaths in airstrikes between March 17 and 23.
While those investigations continue, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said, "There is no military force in the world that is proven more sensitive to civilian casualties."
"We are keenly aware that every battlefield where an enemy hides behind women and children is also a humanitarian field, and we go out of our way to always do everything humanly possible to reduce the loss of life or injury among innocent people," Mattis said. "The same cannot be said for our adversaries."
'Told to stay at home'
US and Iraqi forces have been trying to regain control of Mosul -- Iraq's second-largest city -- from ISIS since October.
ISIS had a firm grip on Mosul since 2014, but suffered a major blow when Iraqi security forces regained control of eastern Mosul in January. But the arduous fight for western Mosul continues.
According to Amnesty International, many of those killed in the airstrikes were "following Iraqi government advice not to leave during the offensive."
"The high civilian toll suggests that coalition forces leading the offensive in Mosul have failed to take adequate precautions to prevent civilian deaths, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law," said Amnesty's Donatella Rovera, who carried out field investigations in Mosul, in a statement.
"The fact that Iraqi authorities repeatedly advised civilians to remain at home instead of fleeing the area, indicates that coalition forces should have known that these strikes were likely to result in a significant numbers of civilian casualties."
Amnesty also accused ISIS forces of "shamefully resort(ing) to using civilians as human shields."
Life under ISIS rule
For Iraqis in recently freed parts of Mosul, the haunting memories of ISIS are still fresh.
One woman in the southern Wadi Hajer neighborhood said ISIS fighters forced her and her family from their home and took them to another house to be used as human shields. She said life under ISIS was humiliating and painful.
A grandmother in the same neighborhood said she lived with her son, his wife and their children as ISIS tormented the area.
She recalled a time when her family's water got cut off, and the whole family had to share one last remaining glass.
"I would go around and give my grandson a sip, and then the others," the grandmother said. "We would all take one sip at a time."
What do you do? Reading this, it's poor Iraq-US advice for citizens to stay.
Yet ISIS have a certain amount of control over these people, and use them to their advantage.
The headline makes the US look like murdering conquerors, the article itself contradicts the headline IMO in some degree.
If the US said; Right, get out of Mosul, we're flattening the place with bombs. A) Do you think innocent people will be allowed to leave and ISIS will stay there, and B) Do you not think ISIS will leave too?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Exactly, random.
"civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes targeting ISIS fighters in the city"
I don't know what people think, but the US aren't going over there, dropping bombs randomly on civilians and flying home. There's days or months of planning and surveillance of ISIS targets, then there's permission to actually bomb the place. Then there is investigations into the bombings. Unfortunately, civilians get caught in the cross fire, as they have throughout history.
I don't agree with it, I think the whole world should just grow up and get along.
However, the world isn't like that. Innocent people get killed, for no reason by extremists or corrupt governments, whatever, but I don't know the answer to these problems.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Can you provide a link? I'd like to read that.
By the way, I'm not suggesting there's dodgy dealings on both sides. "The West" has a lot to answer for, i.e arms deals, oil etc...
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the Russian news network? RT?
dutchman
Well-Known Member
So?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Well, it's not like they have an agenda against the US :shy:
Look, it's such a web of lies, deceit and corruption. All I'm trying to say is, there is strategic attacks going on by "the west" if you believe they want to help Syria, Iraq etc.
Personally, I don't know if they're trying to help, or access oil etc. But Russia are there too for whatever reason. Then there's arms deals etc
I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make about what I said, I know the US (mainly) and the rest of the west can be evil SOBs, but the whole world is corrupt and fucked IMO.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Does US Newsweek have an agenda against the US too?
ISIS leaders are fleeing Mosul for Syria ahead of a planned Iraqi offensive
There were many more reports at the time but for some reason Google has made them very difficult to find now.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure, but a simple google of US newsweek would suggest so.
This headline is one example, hardly a pro-US stance:
TRUMP'S ATTACK ON SYRIA KILLED FOUR CHILDREN, STATE NEWS AGENCY CLAIMS
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Dutch, I'm not suggesting the US aren't shady characters in all this, and agree that the media hide and manipulate things.
I don't know all the facts, and do not claim to. I hope "we" are trying to make the world a better place, but I'm also not naive enough to know the US and the West can be corrupt as anything.
Hopefully, in our lifetime, the world will be a better place, for everyone.
I don't know all the facts, and do not claim to. I hope "we" are trying to make the world a better place, but I'm also not naive enough to know the US and the West can be corrupt as anything.
Hopefully, in our lifetime, the world will be a better place, for everyone.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
They describe DTs announcement as being quite 'emotional' - but when I heard it I thought he sounded a little self-satisfied...as-in 'Yes! This is the moment I have been waiting for...as last I have been able to bomb the buggery outta somebody'
Russian response is rhetoric only imo. They want to show solidarity with Assad, but no way will they take on the US'
...onwards & upwards PUSB
Russian response is rhetoric only imo. They want to show solidarity with Assad, but no way will they take on the US'
...onwards & upwards PUSB
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Not directly but my guess is they will now bomb the shit out of US-backed rebels in Syria and also supply Assad with the high-tech weapons they've been denying him for so long.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Yep...you may well be right on that one. For every action there is a reaction...sometimes the reactions are disguised
...onwards & upwards PUSB
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
You can't wage a war without killing innocent civilians. It's doubtful you could fire one cruise missile, never mind 59, without killing one non-combatant.
You can try to minimise collateral damage but you cannot eliminate it.
It's a fact, and it's the price of maintaining freedom.
If you think otherwise, you are a misguided fool.
You can try to minimise collateral damage but you cannot eliminate it.
It's a fact, and it's the price of maintaining freedom.
If you think otherwise, you are a misguided fool.
Some did, but some civilians in a neighboring village got something they didn't deserve.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Who did? Who deserved it? Again war impacts the innocent
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
You surely aren't suggesting what I think you are Dave?
He is not really a stupid man. He would surely avoid doing such things having freely declared his financial interest. It was the least risky option to US interests.
His shareholding is more a reflection of an intelligent approach imo...the US would mostly prefer Tomahawk Missile use to putting pilots & planes at risk of being shot down by anyone else's forces. Especially Russian forces in Syria...coz that would definitely bring things to a direct confrontation.
This would not be a decision he would take alone, or unadvised, nor against other's advice.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
BackRoomRummermill
Well-Known Member
It needs sorting out for everyone's sake
We could could all end up melting in instant sunshine if they get it wrong I am sorry to say
We could could all end up melting in instant sunshine if they get it wrong I am sorry to say
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
It's all a total mess.
Why the US have done a full u-turn on their stance with Assad is beyond me. I think Trump is being used as a puppet by the people that really run America.
I just hope Theresa May has the backbone to say no to our troops going in, if the US declare war in Syria. We should keep out of it, IMO.
Why the US have done a full u-turn on their stance with Assad is beyond me. I think Trump is being used as a puppet by the people that really run America.
I just hope Theresa May has the backbone to say no to our troops going in, if the US declare war in Syria. We should keep out of it, IMO.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
price for maintaining freedom
lol
lol
